linux-kernel - Re: LOOP_CONFIGURE ioctl doesn't work if lo_offset/lo

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 20:24:05 +0200
From:   Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>
To:     Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>
Cc:     linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: LOOP_CONFIGURE ioctl doesn't work if lo_offset/lo_sizelimit are set

Hi Lennart,

Thanks for the report, I'll look into it. FWIW, we've been using
LOOP_CONFIGURE on Android with lo_offset/lo_sizelimit without issues,
but it may be a particular configuration that's causing issues.

Thanks,
Martijn

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 5:44 PM Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Even with fe6a8fc5ed2f0081f17375ae2005718522c392c6 the LOOP_CONFIGURE
> ioctl doesn't work correctly. It gets confused if the
> lo_offset/lo_sizelimit fields are set to non-zero.
>
> In a quick test I ran (on Linux 5.8.3) I call LOOP_CONFIGURE with
> .lo_offset=3221204992 and .lo_sizelimit=50331648 and immediately
> verify the size of the block device with BLKGETSIZE64. It should of
> course return 50331648, but actually returns 3271557120. (the precise
> values have no particular relevance, it's just what I happened to use
> in my test.) If I instead use LOOP_SET_STATUS64 with the exact same
> parameters, everything works correctly. In either case, if I use
> LOOP_GET_STATUS64 insted of BLKGETSIZE64 to verify things, everything
> looks great.
>
> My guess is that the new ioctl simply doesn't properly propagate the
> size limit into the underlying block device like it should. I didn't
> have the time to investigate further though.
>
> Lennart